By Abigail Folberg, Laura Brooks Dueland and Mikki Hebl
Critics of diversity, equity and inclusion programs, commonly referred to by the acronym DEI, are increasingly using boycotts and bans to fight against their use. People often argue that this anti-DEI backlash is motivated by race-neutral concerns – for example, that DEI practices are irrelevant to work performance or are too political.
But our recent research, published in the peer-reviewed Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, suggests that conservative critiques of DEI often boil down to one thing: anti-Black racism.
As psychology researchers, we wanted to understand why people react to DEI the way they do. So, we recruited more than 1,000 people to take part in three related studies.
For each study, we measured participants’ conservatism on a seven-point scale ranging from extremely liberal to extremely conservative. Single-item measures such as this are often used by researchers.
We also measured participants’ anti-Black racism using the symbolic racism scale, which is a well-validated and commonly used measure of anti-Black racism. Research suggests that as overt racism has become less acceptable, people tend to direct racism toward symbols of racial equality, like DEI. That meant the symbolic racism scale was an ideal measure of anti-Black racism for our purposes.
How we did our work
In the first study, we asked participants to read a job advertisement from either a company that emphasizes DEI or a company that emphasized teamwork and good professional relationships. Then, participants rated their interest in the job and how fair they thought the company was. In later studies, they also indicated how well they thought they’d fit in.
We found that participants who scored higher on our measure of conservatism expressed significantly less interest in pursuing a job at the company promoting DEI, and viewed it as less fair compared with the company promoting teamwork.
We then added symbolic racism to our statistical model. Once we did that, our measure of conservatism no longer predicted job interest or perceived fairness in the pro-DEI company condition.
In other words, symbolic racism accounted for the effect of conservatism on outcomes in the DEI condition. This suggests that conservative participants’ reactions to DEI aren’t independent from symbolic racism.
We expanded on these findings in our following studies. In the second study, participants were randomly assigned to read descriptions of similar pro-DEI or pro-teamwork companies. Additionally, half of the participants were told why the organization supported either DEI or teamwork, and the other half were not.
We found that participants who scored higher on conservatism expressed less interest in applying for a job at the pro-DEI company and viewed it as being less fair, regardless of whether DEI – or teamwork – was clearly tied to job-related criteria.
We estimated statistical models similar to the ones we built in the first study. And we again found that when we added symbolic racism to our statistical model, negative views of the DEI company disappeared. Thus, negative reactions to the pro-DEI organization seemed to reflect race-related rather than job-related concerns.
In the third study, participants read job advertisements for a pro-DEI, pro-teamwork or pro-family-values company. The pro-family-values company was described as seeking to preserve traditional values.
We found that participants who more strongly endorsed conservatism were more interested in applying for a job at that company, and viewed it as more fair and a better “fit” in the pro-family-values scenario. The opposite was true of reactions to the pro-DEI company.
When we added symbolic racism to our models, we found that positive views of the pro-family-values company remained significant, but negative views of the pro-DEI company disappeared. This suggests that opposition to DEI is rooted in anti-Black racism, not concerns about politics.
Why it matters
Given the fraught political environment, organizations will need to address criticisms of DEI programs. Successfully responding to these criticisms requires addressing the underlying motive — which our research suggests is often anti-Black racism.
What’s next
As part of the hiring process, many companies and organizations ask job applicants about their views on DEI or what they’ve done to promote it. In our study, we included requests for similar statements.
However, no one has tested whether people’s answers to these statements actually predict performance related to DEI. That’s what our team plans to examine next — whether someone’s stated views on DEI can forecast job outcomes like collaborating effectively in diverse teams.
Abigail Folberg is Assistant Professor of Psychology and Laura Brooks Dueland is an Adjunct Instructor in Psychology, both at the University of Nebraska Omaha, Mikki Hebl is Martha and Henry Malcolm Lovett Professor of Psychological Sciences and Management at Rice University.
The Conversation arose out of deep-seated concerns for the fading quality of our public discourse and recognition of the vital role that academic experts could play in the public arena. Information has always been essential to democracy. It’s a societal good, like clean water. But many now find it difficult to put their trust in the media and experts who have spent years researching a topic. Instead, they listen to those who have the loudest voices. Those uninformed views are amplified by social media networks that reward those who spark outrage instead of insight or thoughtful discussion. The Conversation seeks to be part of the solution to this problem, to raise up the voices of true experts and to make their knowledge available to everyone. The Conversation publishes nightly at 9 p.m. on FlaglerLive.
Samuel L. Bronkowitz says
This just in:
Water is wet
The sky is up
People are racist and really, really, really want to say that slur
DaleL says
Let’s face it, life is not fair. Some of us, who want to live in warm sunny climates don’t have the appropriate complexion. As a result, in our old age, we make annual visits to a dermatologist. Some of us were not born into wealthy, well educated, families. Yet, perhaps because of our skin color and a good public school, people assumed we were. Our race is white (lowercase). Why? Because “White” uppercase is associated with racist tropes. Its a small slight, but its out there. (To professor Abigail Folberg’s credit, in her writing, she is equal in her capitalization.) Others, because of darker skin color or place of origin, are accused of eating cats and dogs! During many years of employment, working class folks of all races have experienced inequality. We have noticed that everyone, from wealthy families, have the best chance of success. A few may have gotten a boost because of DEI programs, but usually at a cost for others. (No child of the wealthy was ever harmed by DEI.) For working class Americans, of all backgrounds and skin colors, there frequently seems to be a “gotcha”. When parents with eighth grade educations have, surprisingly, a very intelligent child. A child who scores so high on a national merit scholarship test that they might qualify for a college scholarship, except there’s a catch. They and the child didn’t know the child should have been doing charitable work during their high school summers instead of WORKING! It’s a Gotcha that benefits the wealthy!
The ultimate hypocrisy are the rich people, who have had every advantage in life, and then pretend to be for the “working class” or claim to identify with the “regular people”.
Kevin says
I don’t care what color a candidate is. If they are better qualified, then they should get the job. However, to hire someone, to fill a quota is wrong.
Sherry says
@kevin. . . Have you personally be responsible for the hiring of the best qualified people for jobs? If so, precisely how did you accomplish that miracle? We really would like to know.
This I can tell you from my 20+ years as a professional recruiter for high tech people at fortune 500 companies. There is systemic and rampant “discrimination” AGAINST people of color. I was actually told, point blank “Whites and maybe Asians” only were to be presented for openings. Or, the less obvious code words like “No Jose, OK?” I actually did things like submit resumes without names. . . but, when the “in person’ interview happened, those wearing the wrong color skin, or maybe even a dress, were most often eliminated 5 minutes into the interview. The best qualified candidates heard things like “sorry for the mis understanding, but this position has been filled”. Then the managers would turn right around and ask me for more candidates. . . “be sure the names are on the resumes”.
So kevin, please do tell us how to make sure the “best qualified” person gets that job. . . seriously, I would really like to know.
Nancy N says
Not to mention, Sherry, that job qualifications are often written from the beginning in a way that favors white candidates from well-off backgrounds, thus rigging the process from the start. DEI isn’t about quotas…it’s about ensuring every qualified candidate has a fair shot, and that the definition of “qualified” isn’t so narrow that it defacto excludes entire groups. I used to attend tech conferences in Orlando and Jacksonville occasionally as part of my job…this was 15 years ago. You could usually count on both hands, in rooms of hundreds of people, the number of women present. To say we were treated as unwelcome is an understatement.
Nancy N. says
Well DUH. Anyone with any sense already knew this. The research just quantified it. I am massively disappointed with the number of companies that have been falling like dominoes to racist MAGA pressure and ending their DEI programs. It’s not just a failure of inclusion…it’s downright hostile behavior to the affected groups.
JimboXYZ says
I think they’re overthinking why anyone would have to work & have a job in the 1st place. If a corporation is going to make the 30+ years anyone gets out of college or whatever to make as much money as is ever going to be offered to them in their working career. Any Corporation telling anyone that they aren’t checking the boxes of DEI&B really has no reason to waste their time there trying to overcome something they are always gonna be told that they weren’t the DEI&B candidate for promotions & raises. We all go to work to make the incomes that improve life, not be part of a social experiment of righting racism & sexism that has been prevalent for as long as there has been work to do. What percentage is there in staying up until 3 AM to figure something out, if another that didn’t will always get the promotion or raise ? Would it have to happen once, twice, before you start to realize that’s a game that was rigged & there has to be another employer or job that is going to reward the employee that came up with the solution. Too often I found in my own career, the promotions, raises were awarded when DEI&B was Affirmative Action or Equal Employment Opportunity. I can’t count the resumes I submitted to the Federal, State & Local governments in the 1980’s & 1990’s alone. I can’t count the projects that I was called in on & involved that simply were a waste of my time to provide a solution for the Affirmative Action & Equal Employment Opportunity. It just meant I worked longer hours for another that showed up late to work, went home early, wasn’t working from home off site. Never again, would I work for any of those companies & couldn’t in good conscious compromise any network I had established to work for those organizations. I did the best I could do, because that’s all those places were going to offer anyway. Trust me, there are glass ceilings for anyone & it matters little what the color of one’s skin is, their gender or their romantic hobbies are off the clock. And I have no time from 7-8 AM to 5-7 PM to work with anyone that pulls those cards for preference. Not when they’re showing up at 9/10 AM and leaving before 5 PM on a regular basis. And I certainly have less time to be up until 2-3 AM working on a project that there is never going to be neither gratitude nor compensation for that effort. If they want to have a DEI&B club, fine by me, don’t involve me with any of it. I have other things I’m more interested in doing than being in the room. I do my end of the work, get paid for that & go home to try to make something better happen that matters to me & family. Sorry already paid it forward somewhere else. I don’t even have the resources or time to be called in for a DEI&B interview like anyone would need practice to interview for something one can never gauge interview success or failure because the result was going to be failure for not being the DEI&B winner. That’s a waste of the resources & effort to dress up, drive over, answer the questions to be the loser. Go find someone else to waste their time with that statistical paperwork to present that DEI&B went down for the position hired for. If you aren’t checking the Government form boxes, you’re never going to overcome that. Most people seek jobs they stand a good probability of being hired for vs no probability of being the DEI&B candidate hired. So testi9ng for racism is a waste of time for this study, the racism is already happening against too many applicants of a job. The outcome is rigged.
Jim says
JimboXYZ,
Sorry to be the one to break it to you but the reason you didn’t get any of those jobs you put your resume in for had nothing to do with DEI….
Maybe you should proof-read your missives on Flagler Live before hitting send…. I’d prefer a little less incoherence….
Antidiscrimination says
Diversity equity and inclusion are good things no matter what lies the “CONservatives” say about it.
Let’s make a woman president for the first time ever!!!!!!!!!!!